Saxophonists?

[gohleekwang]

i think it is not about has been discovered or hasn't been discover, it is about how you make the contact of the sound you got and why / how you interpret with it.

still the problem with novelty shouldn't be ignored. take for example stephane rives' impressive (and great!) solo album Fibres. A lot of those tracks are just based on a particular technique and sound - it stands and falls with those. If those techniques would become common knowledge among saxophonists the magic would disappear.

good that you bring up an interesting example. i think the "particular technique and sound - it stands and falls with those" is the just the skin of the album, what make the album interesting is the fresh & bone (and the soul / spirit) which requested a few more listen.

i agreed "if those techniques would become common knowledge among saxophonists the magic would disappear", but it will not happen in the short term, i mean a good way of expression will not loss it's magic within 10~20 years even it is just a very limited vocabulary. i have not good example on sax but on trumpet, Axel Dörner still sound as fresh after all this years. so i don't think this is something you have to worry about when you are searching your own way of expression on with the instrument.

i wander if i seem Stéphane Rives live before... maybe i did.

[RFKorp]

I'm with gohleekwang. Technique does not music make.

Fibres is beautiful because of the way Rives uses his technique. Not just by merit of it being an "unusual" technique.

It's not like he's preparing the sax in any new way (just a mute sometimes). It's all in adjusting how his mouth handles the reed and how his hands close the various holes along the instrument. And it's his precise mastery of the instrument's tonal capabilities in this way and his ear for elegant "musical" juxtapositions of sounds that makes it a good album. Not the fact that nobody else can do it.

[Dohol]

I'm with gohleekwang. Technique does not music make.

Fibres is beautiful because of the way Rives uses his technique. Not just by merit of it being an "unusual" technique.

It's not like he's preparing the sax in any new way (just a mute sometimes). It's all in adjusting how his mouth handles the reed and how his hands close the various holes along the instrument. And it's his precise mastery of the instrument's tonal capabilities in this way and his ear for elegant "musical" juxtapositions of sounds that makes it a good album. Not the fact that nobody else can do it.

Well said..

[Richard Pinnell]

The technique versus content question is a very valid one here. For me the sax is probably the one instrument that falls easiest into the "extended technique for the sake of it" trap, but for some reason I've heard a few players over the last twelve or so months that have really impressed me live and on disc. Sitting a few feet from John Butcher and Seymour Wright play in the audition studio recently were both great experiences. Martin Küchen and Lucio Capece have also blown me away live over the last year. What all of these musicians do differently for me is they use the full potential of their instrument to make great music, rather than just make music for the sake of exploring that potential.

[David]

Ok I understand your views and the reason for my bringing up the subject is my own ambivalent position. When I hear something on a record that I know exactly how to do it's not very interesting anymore. That's why I like someone like John Butcher who you can't imitate by just acquiring his technique; or Thomas Ankersmit who takes the technique and makes it into compositions instead of expositions of sounds. In contrast to that a saxplayer like Christine Sehnaoui seems to do the latter. I was very impressed by her at first but soon lost interest.

So I agree with Richard: saxophonists must be very wary of how they use their (extended) techniques. I guess time will tell who's really contributed to developing this music.

[gohleekwang]

Ok I understand your views and the reason for my bringing up the subject is my own ambivalent position. When I hear something on a record that I know exactly how to do it's not very interesting anymore. That's why I like someone like John Butcher who you can't imitate by just acquiring his technique; or Thomas Ankersmit who takes the technique and makes it into compositions instead of expositions of sounds. In contrast to that a saxplayer like Christine Sehnaoui seems to do the latter. I was very impressed by her at first but soon lost interest.

So I agree with Richard: saxophonists must be very wary of how they use their (extended) techniques. I guess time will tell who's really contributed to developing this music.

John Butcher and Thomas Ankersmit are amazing Saxophonists!

[kangaroo?]

Christine Sehnaoui on the other hand, is a great musician

to reverse David's example, I was not very impressed by her playing when i first listened to her, and i think it was because i focused on her sounds & in that part she seemed to be following the trend that was building at the time. It was when i focused on her playing, her actual musical choices, & heard her together with other players that i started appreciating her work

[David]

Christine Sehnaoui on the other hand, is a great musician

to reverse David's example, I was not very impressed by her playing when i first listened to her, and i think it was because i focused on her sounds & in that part she seemed to be following the trend that was building at the time. It was when i focused on her playing, her actual musical choices, & heard her together with other players that i started appreciating her work

wow we had the absolute opposite listening experiences

[william e]

Having tried and abandoned circular breating some 20 years ago, it seems to me so unnatural as to be a bit dangerous. This report -- "Unsafe sax: cohort study of the impact of too much sax on the mortality of famous jazz musicians," at http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7225/1612 -- seems not to have deterred anyone. On the one hand, I admire performances like Parker on "The Snake Decides." On the other hand, I sometimes find myself distracted by concerns about the health of the performer. I'm probably squeamish, but I don't think I would want to see a live performance that involves neck-swelling and red faces for more than a moment or two.

[rainey]

This report -- "Unsafe sax: cohort study of the impact of too much sax on the mortality of famous jazz musicians," at http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7225/1612

That article probably exhibits some of the worst science I've ever seen. Tracing the life spans of famous jazz musicians and attributing their deaths to excessive circular breathing is specious, at best. Oh, but maybe I'm wrong:

100% of the authors' friends who were asked their opinions on these measures agreed that they were a "good" or a "very good" idea.

Wow.

By the way, how many jazz saxophonists born between 1882 and 1974 used circular breathing? At all? Regularly? I wonder how that figure compares to those who used heroin, abused alcohol, lived in abject poverty, etc.

There's no evidence that circular breathing has any negative impact on health, whatsoever.

[mudd]

That article probably exhibits some of the worst science I've ever seen.

i'd say it's worth reading purely for the badness of its science. i suspected this was some sort of parody journal ("medical publication of the year") but this does not appear to be the case. astounding. i would love/hate to see their take on the health risks of rocking microphones.

evan parker always struck me as a healthy and hardy person.

m

[faster]

I seriously doubt circular breathing is dangerous. Even going into oxygen debt for a little while is generally ok--athletes do it all the time.